Allahabad High Court
SHAMIM AHMADversusTHE BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a fresh direction for the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, to hear and decide Revision No. 2512 of 2016 within a time frame set by the court. The High Court had earlier, on 1 November 2023, ordered the Board to dispose of the revision within six months of receiving a certified copy of that order, subject to any legal impediment. The court observed that the revision had already been expedited and that a new direction was unnecessary. It further held that if the Board failed to comply with the earlier order, the appropriate remedy would be a contempt petition, not a fresh writ. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as misconceived.
Issues considered
- Whether a fresh direction can be issued to the Board of Revenue to decide the pending revision after an earlier court order.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the earlier direction.
- What is the appropriate remedy for non‑compliance with the earlier court order?
Subjects
- writ petition
- revision
- Board of Revenue
- contempt
- court direction
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4289 of 2026
Shamim Ahmad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Board Of Revenue And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Singh, Mohd Kamil, Pratiksha
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent no.1 to hear and decide the Revision No. 2512 of 2016, within
a time frame as fixed by this Court.
2. Perusal of the writ petition shows that earlier by the order of this Court
dated 1.11.2023, this Court had directed the Board of Revenue U.P. at
Allahabad to decide the pending revision of petitioner within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, unless
there is any legal impediment.
3. As the revision had already been expedited by this Court, a fresh
direction is not required. If the respondent no.1 had violated the earlier
directions issued by this Court, the remedy available to petitioner was to
file a contempt petition for its defiance.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition appears to be
misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 24, 2026
Anil
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…